Once you go Barack, you never go back

[Max_Kolbe]

I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.

That is never the point, the point is having your say.  Should I vote for Satan or his #1 demon just because one of them might win?  The same applies to the election, we have our choices and we have a chance to vote and register our view, win , lose or draw.

I believe Satan's #1 demon is running.

[Tsalagi]

I'd rather eat a worm than vote Democrat.  I'd rather eat half a worm than vote Republican.  But then,   I'm a monarchist so there ya go.

I'm with you on that one.

[yosemite]

well i guess....pass the salt and pepper please.due to the issues i have not been voteing,
but lately i see how the states are being deceived and feel a strong conviction to vote.
i guess every one knows how i will vote. it wont be democrat for sure, and not even republican this time around. if that is all they have to offer us for candidates we are in a sad shape!  -yo

[bishopnl]

Pelosi on 'Hush Rush,' and Filibustering FISA
by John Gizzi
 
The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the "Fairness Doctrine" (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during '08.  In ruling out a vote on Pence's proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the "Fairness Doctrine" -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Experts say that the "Fairness Doctrine," which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force.  Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

"No," the Speaker replied, without hesitation.  She added that "the interest in my caucus is the reverse" and that New York Democratic Rep. "Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now."

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall.  There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.

"Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.

"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation

Source

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Obama, other than the fact that if Democrats retain control of Congress this fall, and pick up more seats, and Obama wins the presidency, you can kiss freedom of speech goodbye.

[bishopnl]

There are few entities on earth that I have more contempt, loathing, and hatred for than the modern day Democratic party, and it's rabid liberal base.  In my opinion, voting for Democrats supports, by proxy, abandonment of the constitution and all of the principles that made this country great--as noted above, free speech being one of them.

I'm not interested in "bipartisanship" or unity or coming together (in political terms).  To me, compromising with the Democrats is the equivalent of compromising with the devil.  I'd rather see the complete and utter annihilation of liberalism. 

[titushome]

Pelosi wants to force radio stations and other media outlets to give equal time to opposing viewpoints - but she won't allow a bill with a viewpoint opposite to hers to come up on the House floor.

Interesting.

[bishopnl]

Pelosi wants to force radio stations and other media outlets to give equal time to opposing viewpoints - but she won't allow a bill with a viewpoint opposite to hers to come up on the House floor.

Interesting.

That's called "hypocrisy"...and it's pretty much synonymous with the word "Democrat."  One of the best things a budding liberal can do is get a copy of the book, "Do As I Say..." by Peter Schweizer.  And Nancy Pelosi is one of the liberal hypocrites featured in there.  It's a real eye opener into how the people who say they are for the common man don't ever apply those pesky rules meant for 'fat cat Republicans' to themselves.

[OGIA]

In my opinion, voting for Democrats supports, by proxy, abandonment of the constitution and all of the principles that made this country great--as noted above, free speech being one of them.

Nate,

I'm of the opinion that what made this country "great" is in part, if not wholly, responsible for what's made it so horrible in these last days.  I've wondered why there are such tremendous revivals in other parts of the world as opposed to here.  I believe the "greatness" of the USA -- all the wonderful "rights" we have come to expect -- has had a great impact on God's being able to move here. 

The few missionaries I've spoken to about the feelings they get when they come "home" all have said they are saddened when they come back.  They clearly see the Laodicean spirit more alive and well here than in any other place they go.

"Great"?  Yeah, maybe in the carnal realm, but our country's greatness has become a curse to God's people.  Reminds me much of the Jews right before they would get plastered by an invading army.  Good thing is that God would always spare His remnant.

[BroTrey]

Pelosi wants to force radio stations and other media outlets to give equal time to opposing viewpoints - but she won't allow a bill with a viewpoint opposite to hers to come up on the House floor.

Interesting.

That's called "hypocrisy"...and it's pretty much synonymous with the word "Democrat."  One of the best things a budding liberal can do is get a copy of the book, "Do As I Say..." by Peter Schweizer.  And Nancy Pelosi is one of the liberal hypocrites featured in there.  It's a real eye opener into how the people who say they are for the common man don't ever apply those pesky rules meant for 'fat cat Republicans' to themselves.

made me smile...... truth tends to do that to folks.....

[EricShane]

after seeing so many people I know stress out and fight and argue over politics... it makes me kind of Glad that I dont Follow politics or anything... lol I have enough stress in my life

[jdcord]

OGIA,

I think our country's apathy is due more to our affluence than it is to our Constitutional liberties.


............ besides, Americans have clearly become more and more apathetic precisely as those foundational liberties have been progressively stripped from them by the federal government, with such apathy coming seemingly in direct proportion to the loss of those liberties.

That would seem to indicate that quite contrary to apathy being a result of individual liberties, that our apathy has instead been a result of American's ever increasing love of, dependence on, and an eerily religious-type of faith in that entity we call "government".  ....... thus it is the rise and worship of government that has resulted in our apathy, while a restoration of our lost liberties could only result in an increase of our faith in and our dependence on God.

[bishopnl]

Ditto to what Jd has said.  In fact, America has in the past seen great spiritual awakenings since the ratification of the Constitution.  The fact that we've slipped into apathy and stagnation has little to do with our freedoms and a whole lot to do with our increased "richness" as well as our propensity for allowing our role in the world as salt and light to be usurped by corrupt, unspiritual entities.

[yosemite]

Ditto to what Jd has said.  In fact, America has in the past seen great spiritual awakenings since the ratification of the Constitution.  The fact that we've slipped into apathy and stagnation has little to do with our freedoms and a whole lot to do with our increased "richness" as well as our propensity for allowing our role in the world as salt and light to be usurped by corrupt, unspiritual entities.

WOW! bishopnl and jd for prez!!  dido, dido!! i guess there are others that listen to as much talk and news shows as i do, in following the election and the issues. i guess me and ole holinesspk,and kyle tend to hold a more agressive view and conversation though!!  LOL  i admit i like an objective conversation. it tends to make it more interesting. if we all had the same opinion we wouldnt have anything to talk about. -yo

[OGIA]

Oh, I agree that apathy is in part due to affluence and dependence on the government.  But, I wasn't talking about apathy.  The atttitude I was addressing is almost the opposite.  It is the strong concern we have for holding onto a false sense of control we seem to think we have because of all the "rights" we've got in this country.  If I'm not mistaken, freedom is one of the hallmarks of this country and why so many, here and abroad, think of the USA as being "great".  We've got more rights than we know what to do with!  I think it is this attitude -- that of believing we have and are guaranteed complete freedom -- that is, in part, what has led this country away from whatever "Christian" basis it ever had.  Everyone is "free" to do what he or she pleases.  Why not apply that to how we view God?  Makes sense to me, especially when governmental issues become more important than God's agenda. 

I don't know if that makes sense, but....oh well.   :grin:

[Tsalagi]

I'm of the opinion that 'rights' are a fiction.

Truth to tell, nobody has any rights.

It's a straw palace, a sop given to the commoner so he won't question what the elitists do, as long as his 'rights' aren't violated.

I do my best to live my life as though I had no "rights".

You have the 'right' to be born.

You have the 'right' to struggle with life as long as you live.

You have the 'right' to die.

That's it.

[yosemite]

what about the right to pay taxes till ya choke!!  -yo

[jdcord]

Tsalagi,

I have to disagree with ya.  I believe that God really has endowed every man (and woman) with such basic rights as those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

1.  In creating us he gives us the right to life (and technically, a right to death as well, but that's a whole nuther can-o-worms ... *L*).

2.  In giving each of us a free will he essentially endowed us all with a right to liberty, that liberty being the right to make individual choices concerning both big and small aspects of our lives, both long-term and immediate, and to have those choices not be restrained and/or interfered with by those in authority:  God himself respects every man's free will and does not force our hand to make us live as he knows is best, therefore any and every authority beneath him should do the same and follow the lead of he who is the head of all authority (in both heaven and earth).

3.  Before the fall of man God himself ensured mankind's happiness, but after the fall our personal happiness depends on our own individual pursuit of such happiness, and to what degree of effort .... and risk ... we each choose to give to that pursuit.  Thus, the pursuit of happiness is also a "right" given to us by our creator.   


The Bill of Rights simply backs up the three general "rights" above, by restricting the government from infringing on specific aspects of them.

[Tsalagi]

Well, let's look at that in the light of 'God-given' vs 'government':

1.) Life is now commonly snuffed out in the womb thanks to governmental interference, leading me to believe that man's God-given right to life is being infringed upon.  Also, wars deprive all sorts of people of life.

2.) If liberty is defined as "the right to make individual choices concerning both big and small aspects of our lives, both long-term and immediate, and to have those choices not be restrained and/or interfered with by those in authority", then it would appear that the natural earthly function of government is to restrain and interfere with total liberty (Some people will not restrain themselves, otherwise what would be the point of government in society?).  Prisoners are not at liberty, at present 25% of the total population of the US is incarcerated.

3.) well, the "pursuit of happiness" is a bit nonsensical as a "right" - happiness is not really definable as one size fits all.  It's a state of mind and the reasons for happiness differ from person to person.  One person may pursue his happiness by barbecuing the neighbors, which of course is not kosher.

(Sorry, couldn't resist the pun )

I guess you could say I believe that if those rights are God-given, then we have no earthly "right" to moderate them at all.  After all, He knows better than we.  Which is why I don't really believe in 'rights' as such, when arbitrary action by the powerful can strip anyone of the natural evidence of those rights in a heartbeat.

I think of government like this:

It's the monster we created to boss us because we're too lazy to boss ourselves. 

It's the one to blame when things go wrong in our nation (who really believes the president has anything to do with the economy?  We buy the cars, and houses, consumer electronics, toys of all sorts, luxury items, et c.  We are (literally) the economy.)

It's the stick we can use to threaten our neighbors, and then pass the blame off on the stick.

Government to me is basically the abrogation of personal responsibility.  The more power is given away, the bigger the government gets and the less responsible we feel - a deliberate adult regression into civil infancy, if you will.

Politically speaking, the closest I've ever come to defining my stance is probably 'pragmatic anarcho-syndicalist', however I am also antidisestablishmentarian - we must have law and order.

[Tsalagi]

any and every authority beneath him should do the same and follow the lead of he who is the head of all authority (in both heaven and earth).

That's a good saying, JD! 

but they don't...

But I still like it, all the same.  :grin:

[yosemite]

man, we're off in (left feild) now. at least it has a righ wing about it!! what are some of yalls veiws of the issues going on now? borack vrs mccain, borack vrs ron paul, mccain and borack vrs ron paul? i kinda shortened the post since yall know where i am on the issues. i'm in a anti-big gov. conspiracy kinda mind, and i like the righteous underdog in the battle.


-yo

[jdcord]

man, we're off in (left feild) now. at least it has a right wing about it!! what are some of yalls veiws of the issues going on now? borack vrs mccain, borack vrs ron paul, mccain and borack vrs ron paul?

I think that Ron Paul was and is the only truthful and honest candidate in the bunch;  and quite frankly he's the only truthful and honest politician in the entire federal government.  He's certainly the only one that actually votes according to the Constitution - the rest of them vote first, and then maybe, possibly, consider the Constitution afterwards, ........ but only if they are dragged kicking and screaming, and absolutely forced into doing so (which they never are, since the only part of the Constitution that the American public actually cares about or pays any attention to is the Bill of Rights - the rest of it they deem "boring" and not worth worrying about, which is why the federal government has become the intrusive gargantuan behemoth and tax-guzzling black hole that it is today).

[yosemite]

    bravo JD!!

[BenJammin]

...Prisoners are not at liberty, at present 25% of the total population of the US is incarcerated...

That number is a bit inaccurate.  Were that the case, there would currently be nearly 76 million people incarcerated in this country alone.

According to the U.S. Dept of Justice and The Sentencing Project, there are approx 2.2 millions persons currently incarcerated in county, state and federal facilities throughout the United States.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the population of the United States, as of July 2008 estimates, is 303,824,646.

That would make the incarceration rate for all county, state and federal correctional facilities less than 1% - .724% to be exact.

Not sure where you came up with the 25% figure, but when I saw it, I knew it was way out of line.  I work at the state penitentiary in Oklahoma, and for April 2008 our total population - incarcerated, parole, probation and contract facilities was 56,497.  The population of OK is approx 3.5 million.  Oklahoma has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, and our rate is only 1.6%.

BenJammin

Sources - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm; http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html; http://www.doc.state.ok.us/newsroom/facts/DOC_Facts_At_A_Glance_April%202008.pdf; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html

[jdcord]

Actually, it's not 25% of the U.S. population: 


I believe the figure he was trying to cite is that 25% of all incarcerated people in the entire world are incarcerated here in the U.S.


Granted, the record keeping on such matters is probably a tad shoddy in some "Third World" countries - but even granting that it still remains that at least 1 in every 5 people on earth that are imprisoned happen to be imprisoned right here in the United States, and that compared to the rest of the world the U.S. Government is clearly "trigger happy" when it comes to locking people up.

Also, it should come as no surprise that the fabulously successful  "War on Drugs"  (*cough*) has in fact only succeeded in creating a black market and in bloating the prison population (to its currently ridiculous and disproportionate levels) with both true criminals who violently conducted their business on that market, but also with far too many "criminals" who's only "crime" is that they have personal vices which under normal circumstances do not victimize any other person in a way that could even remotely be described legally as a "crime", but vices which the government has nevertheless decided (with a lot of helpful nudging and influence from lobbyists, P.A.C.'s, and powerful corporate interests) that it simply does not approve of such personal "bad habits" .........  and apparently they feel that such "tisk, tisk" disapproval is more than enough to justify confiscating every asset the person has and then imprisoning them for automatic maximum term sentences.

..... talk about the punishment not fitting the so-called "crime" (not to mention the sheer "overkill" involved).

   

[Tsalagi]

BenJammin, JD

You are correct.  I was incorrect regarding my figures; I have also passed this along to the [normally rather reliable] source, he replied 'it was a typo'.